From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_xlogdump |
Date: | 2013-02-26 16:33:48 |
Message-ID: | 3095.1361896428@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> I for one wonder why we even have PGXS support in contrib at all. It's
>> not documented or tested anywhere, so it might as well not exist.
> I think I did about the same comment back when cooking the extension
> patch, and the answer then was all about providing PGXS usage examples.
> Now if none of the buildfarm animals are actually building our contribs
> out of tree, maybe we should just remove those examples.
> The cost of keeping them is that they double-up the Makefile content and
> lots of users do think they need their extension's Makefile to be
> structured the same. The common effect before the extension availability
> was for people to provide extensions that would only build in tree.
> I don't want to kill cleaning up those Makefiles, but I still want to
> make a strong correlation in between that point and providing core
> maintained extensions. I don't think extensions should have support for
> being built in-tree at all.
> My proposal: paint them extension rather than contrib modules, then
> cleanup Makefiles so as to stop building them in-tree.
[ Sigh... ] Why this eagerness to fix what isn't broken?
Leave the Makefiles alone. They're not broken and they provide useful
examples, plus a sense of continuity between in-tree and not-in-tree
extensions. Any change here will likely break build scenarios that
work today --- in particular, this proposal will break building contrib
before the main tree has been installed.
If somebody wants to set up a buildfarm member that occasionally tests
PGXS building of contrib/, that's fine with me. But it isn't, and never
will be, the main build scenario for contrib/ IMO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-26 16:34:30 | Re: "COPY foo FROM STDOUT" and ecpg |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-26 16:29:10 | Re: pgsql: Fix pg_dumpall with database names containing = |